MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884488607 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.10599

WE NEVER TALK: PEER TO PEER OBSERVATION AND FORMATIVE FEEDBACK AS STEPS TO EVOLVING ACADEMIC CULTURE

2018· article· en· W2884488607 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Greg J. Evans, Grant Allen, Tim Bender, W.R. Cluett

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentPeer feedbackPedagogyMathematics educationPeer reviewComputer scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract – This paper advocates for the introduction of peer-to-peer feedback between instructors as a way to promote increased discussion about teaching. A framework for peer observation is presented along with some guidelines for formative feedback. These tools are very much works in progress that are being refined, in part, through a “teaching triad” initiative being introduced in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry at the University of Toronto. The hope is that increase conversations about teaching will promote a shift in culture that will encourage and support the exploration of new instructional pedagogies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207